Share this

Conservative activists in Wisconsin are equipping themselves with flipcams and camera phones at the protests, hoping to capture abusive behavior by pro-union demonstrators. The aim: Trying to reverse the media narrative they say blames the right for heated political rhetoric.

Examples include footage of signs that show crosshairs over a photo of Gov. Scott Walker, as well as signs that compare the Republican governor to Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hosni Mubarak. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin says she’s doing the “reporting the tea party-bashing national media won’t do on the rabid outbreak of progressive incivility and violence at Big Labor protests across the country.”

With all the talk of incivility in political discourse stemming from Tucson shootings, has the mainstream media coverage of the Wisconsin protests been fair?

For some reason, it seems that people believe in the veracity and fairness of a story based on whether they agree with the particular spin of the reporter. Since I am not "on the ground" in Wisconsin, I cannot say definitively whether the coverage by the mainstream media is fair or unfair. However, I had the chance to observe firsthand the media coverage of the last "flavor of the week" -- the (illegal) immigration debate in Arizona -- and can definitively say that many in the media were unfair in their original reporting and in the way that they mischaracterized the actual law.

I also observed members of the media "choreographing" the protesters by "scrunching" a small and disparate group into a tighter shot so that there appeared to be a larger and more vocal crowd for live broadcasts. I can also say that I observed multiple "tea party" events on the lawn outside my Senate office and never saw a single racist sign. But that was not the perception that many in the media appeared to want to portray, so they created a "narrative" and their reporting stayed within those narrow confines.

We should only ask that the media report the truth, good or bad, and give honest, non-biased facts. Then let the reader/watcher decide for themselves what the truth is. It should not be the job of the media to sway. A true journalist should provide facts without opinion.

Incivility occurs when people perceive they are being treated unfairly. Perhaps the media could help by breaking free from whatever narrative they are trying to advance, hiding their own bias, and more freely acknowledging that there is often more than one side to every issue.

Has the coverage been fair? The obvious answer is “no” – the mainstream media has almost completely ignored the vile, disgusting and hateful behavior and speech of the union protesters and thugs in Wisconsin.

That the right-wingers think they have to try to incite incivility and even violence from the union sympathizers tells you all you need to know about who’s being civil and the motivation of the opposing parties. The mainstream media coverage has been complete and fair.

The media has a double standard. If Republican senators, state or federal, were to run away from their posts for two weeks and go on vacation to Rockford, Ill., the mainstream media would be calling for their salaries to be cut. No private-sector workers could get away with going AWOL for a fortnight and keeping their jobs — yet the MSM is giving Wisconsin senators a free pass.

The mainstream media have done an awful job covering Wisconsin events and to the strong pro-union sentiment there and nationally. As a succession of polls in Wisconsin and the country have shown, 60 to 70 percent of the public support the right of public sector unions to organize collectively. Yet the frame to most coverage has been highly skeptical of unions and their place in America.

Furthermore, there has been almost no coverage of the unprecedented steps taken by Gov. Walker, such as limited access to the Capitol -- something that is protected under the state's Constitution -- and the bolting windows shut to prevent food from being delivered to people inside. One would know almost nothing about these events by watching media reports; without Twitter and other internet information sources, there would be little known around the country.

Wisconsin people have typified the upper Midwest mentality -- highly civil and participatory. Protest signs are often humorous. For protests that have lasted so long, the emotional restraint is remarkable. Although a tea party y leader organized his supporters to try to create incidents and Gov. Walker said in the prank phone call that he had considered using instigators in the crowd, calm has prevailed. Media coverage portraying protests otherwise have tended to turn out like the footage of angry protesters on Fox, which actually showed people in California protesting near palm trees -- overly hyped.

As the Supreme Court affirmed 8-1 yesterday, even "hurtful speech on public issues" is protected as part of our country's fundamental commitment to free speech and public debate. Still, it's hard to believe that the vile taunts of Fred Phelps and his cult of followers from Westboro actually hold sway over anyone outside of their narrow circle. The community may be offended, but the vitriol itself helps us decode the irrational hate embedded in the message. The "truth will out" so to speak.

Which is why it's so disappointing to see the journalistic media filtering the protest rhetoric in Wisconsin. Let us see the full range of emotion on display and judge for ourselves, whether the violent rhetoric and fascist references are typical of the demonstrators in Madison or if they represent an excitable fringe, as they did during many tea party events over the past year. If we want civility in public debate, then any incivility needs to be called out into the open, especially by those who would claim to be providing fair news coverage.

The coverage has been quite fair. The fact is that more than 70,000 people assembled around the Wisconsin state Capitol on Saturday without a single arrest. In any crowd that large, there will be a few stray individuals who act inappropriately, but the peaceful nature of the protests these last two weeks is remarkable. We can only hope that members of the state legislature remain as civil.

Ah, one of my favorite topics. The "liberal" media, of which it is not. As a nationally syndicated talk host for more than 23 years now, the fact is that if I were conservative I'd be on 500 stations, but as a liberal I'm only allowed on a fifth of those stations. (And thank you to the program directors on conservative stations who have the cajones to carry the show!)

Those on the right claim that the liberal media only covers and favors causes with a lefty slant; not true. Are people throughout the world crying out for freedom -- liberal or conservative causes? And how about Charlie Sheen: left or right? The fact is, the Wisconsin protesters aren't getting the coverage they deserve. The mainstream media has covered Egypt, Libya and yes, Mr. Sheen, more extensively.

And speaking of more extensive coverage, what about the tea party protesters/demonstrations!?! I must admit, the tea party did have a fringe element with wacky tactics that got them air time. Their craziness worked; maybe the Wisconsin protesters should follow suit. In light of Tucson, however, the Wisconsin protesters should not be putting crosshairs on images of Gov. Walker, nor should they be comparing him to Adolf Hiter or Hosni Mubarak. No one should be compared to Hitler unless they command the extermination of more than 11 million people simply because of their religion, eye color or sexual orientation. And comparing Walker to Mubarak? No way! Mubarak eventually listened to his people and stepped down!

It is sad that in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, the people were exercising their First Amendment right when they didnt even have one. The people of Wisconsin have the right, and as the protests carry on, the media coverage has waned -- except now for conservatives who want to find that one sign in the crowd with the Hitler moustache on Walker.

It further saddens me, that as a member of the media, I watch my fellow talk hosts, journalists and reporters care more about foreign political protests and cover those more thoroughly than this grand display of Democratic freedom in our own backyard. Maybe the people of Wisconsin should get Charlie Sheen to speak on their behalf; the media would cover it and the world would tweet about it.

The mainstream media, overall, has been fair. But the real action now is on the Internet where the Buffalo Beast created a sensation by tricking Gov. Walker into revealing his partnership with the Koch brothers and virtual agreement with their union-busting ideology. So-called alternative media have adopted a no-holds-barred approach that unfortunately reflects the bitter divisions in American politics and among economic elites over how the country will pay for the nation's past and future military and domestic policy commitments.

Of course it has not been even-handed. In the post-Tucson outbreak of "civility," television reporters were tripping all over themselves to strike from their commentary language that used hunting, archery or other metaphors in their coverage of politics. Phrases and words like "in the crosshairs" and "targeting" were all but banned from the air, lest viewers get the impression that reporters and commentators advocated violence.

For the past two weeks we have seen union members (shall we say "state government-supported goons"?) sporting signs comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler, Mussolini and Mubarak and a return to the short-banned terminology, and no one on the left or in the presumed "mainstream media" voices a word of protest or criticism.

If Obama meant what he said in Tucson, he should lead the condemnation. I am coming to believe that to the extent that he believes anything he says, it is only be coincidence.

The polls mirror the protests, and part of that is because by and large the protesters have been incredibly civil and nonviolent in their words and deeds. The right is now going to go on a “the mainstream media is against us” campaign, which is what they always do when the public doesn’t support them, and they will undoubtedly get the media to start presenting a situation in which most people side with the cops, firefighters and teachers as an “equal time” he said/she said, in which David and Goliath both have equal positions, just as they’ve done with issues like climate change, where it’s 200 scientists on one side for every one pseudo-scientist working for an oil or coal company on the other side. I hope they resist the pressure this time, because the right knows well how to “work the refs.”

There is a profound sense among the conservative movement, and particularly among the tea party movement, that the mainstream media skews reporting in favor of Democrats. By any reasonable estimation, such concerns are legitimate. We need only look at the media obsession with isolated signs at tea party rallies yet lack of coverage of widespread use of much worse signs in Madison.

One only can imagine the coverage in the media if tea party protesters had occupied a state Capitol building in the manner of the protesters in Madison and had acted towards legislators with the widespread vitriol evidenced by the pro-union protesters. In the absense of meaningful mainstream media coverage, conservatives feel no choice but to take the flow of information into their own hands, with the Internet as the means of distribution.

It took the mainstream media almost a full week to even acknowledge what was transpiring in Wisconsin, but since then they seem to be fairly reporting what is taking place. My guess is that conservative activists are probably being paid by organizations run by the Koch brothers in the wake of the negative public opinion backing public employees.

This conservative reaction is not unlike what we’ve witnessed before when the public resoundingly says, “Hey, not so fast well-financed corporate America, you are seriously out of line." Pray the actions of conservative activists don’t incite a riot or worse.

Neither the right nor the left have a corner on incivility. There's plenty of incivility on both sides from grassroots to astroturf to radio-heads to corporate network pundits. But it's not the only discourse out there in the public arena. There's plenty of civility as well.

Regardless, we can debate here the messages of violence in speech and signage (and we should) and we should be wary to over-express and to over-interepret. Meanwhile, we should remember that free speech advocates in countries like Libya and Zimbabwe face bullets and arrests right now today for the very right simply to be heard. In this context, our problem with incivility is a high-priced problem.

Good luck with trying to make Wisconsinites look like soccer hooligans. As Joe Scarborough points out at POLITICO, it’s the nicest state in the nation. Public opinion is clearly on the side of the protesters (see CBS/New York Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Pew, AFL-CIO/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen ... all conclude the public wants no part of removing collective bargaining.) Givebacks are okay, but Wisconsin unions have already offered that. Gov. Walker’s power grab is seen by the public as just that, and when even Rasmussen deserts you, you‘re in trouble with the public.

When you consider that the mainstream media has not covered the issue of collective bargaining for more than 30 years, yes I believe they have been fair. We know in every group left, right, center there are those who go to the extreme but what we have seen in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio are large, peaceful demonstrations.

What Malkin is trying to do proves once again that she and the so-called tea party people she is trying to represent are not about budgets, deficits and the economy. They are about union-busting political power. They believe if you destroy the unions, you destroy the Democrats.

The stopgap federal budget measure enacted Wednesday runs only through March 18. The White House and congressional Democrats are looking for longer term extensions. "It is hard to believe we've reached that point in Washington where we are going to fund our United States government two weeks at a time," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Are short-term extensions an irresponsible way to conduct the budget process? Or are they an opportunity for congressional Republicans to shrink the federal government, by keeping a tight grip on the nation's purse strings? Would longer-term extensions lead to more spending?

The House has taken the first steps in the long process of eliminating our nation’s deficit. The futures of our children and grandchildren are at stake, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join the fight by working to reduce out-of-control spending. We must continue to make the kind of tough decisions and cuts that Americans are making all across the country.

House leadership has indicated no desire to shut the government down, and I hope to avoid any such situation. The government must respond to the will of the people, which means an end to the reckless spending of money we don’t have. The House version of the Continuing Resolution had $60 billion of cuts - a modest sum given the size of deficit and debt. If the Senate refuses to cut that much, the American people have to judge who is more serious about saving the country's financial future.

Democrats had a full year in 2010 to act responsibly to pass a budget and they failed. House Republicans passed H.R. 1 to fix the mess left by the Democrats and cut federal spending.

One short-term CR gives Democrats enough time to act. I will not allow the Democrats to string the American people along with another short term CR. Republicans have done their part. Now it's time for the Democrats to step up to the plate.

This two-week extension is nothing but naked political theater. It’s not establishing policy. I learned a long time ago that the business community doesn’t run two weeks at a time. And for us to be jerking the America government and the American commerce system up around two weeks at a time is absolutely crazy.

But their intention is to extend it two weeks and two weeks until they finally find the two weeks where the debt limit has to be lifted, and they can then put together a wonderful package of raising the debt limit, extending the CR, and making massive cuts that they could never get at any other point because they will have so much leverage on the economy that they will in effect be unstoppable at that point.

It’s hard for me to believe that the president would stand up to them when they come in, when they bring in their ideas of cutting out Planned Parenthood, they’ll just stick that right in there, wrapped around the package of the debt limit lifting and the continuing resolution for 2011. It is horrible governance. Horrible example of government operation, this two weeks at a time.

We are in the midst of a fiscal crisis. With over $14 trillion in debt and an irresponsible $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, we have no other choice but to rein in spending immediately. This problem was not created overnight and it will take time to fix, but we must find the resolve to tackle this head on.

It was irresponsible not to pass a budget last year. It is irresponsible for the Senate to play politics with taxpayer money and refuse the over $60 billion in cuts the House recently passed with the CR. If the only way to cut spending and start living within our means is to hold a vote every two weeks, then that is the route we must take.

But let me be very clear. The House did its job and worked hard, in a bipartisan fashion, to cut spending. The two-week CR is acceptable in that it allows the Senate the proper time to openly debate the CR; however, it is now time for the Senate and the president to be leaders and do what is right for our country.

Make no mistake, it is inexcusable to continue spending more money than we have. For years Main Street has lived within its means and government should have to live within that reality. My colleagues and I in the House will continue to stand firm on our pledge to cut spending and we will not vote for yet another budget that is "business as usual". When we tackle the government’s spending problem in parts, we are able to achieve real reforms.

While Democrats bear some of the responsibility for the mess we are in today, we must also be honest in admitting that the grave problems we are facing are bipartisan and that is going to take a bipartisan effort to find the solutions the taxpayers are so desperately searching for.

Recent weeks have witnessed vastly different approaches to course correction for our country’s recessed economy. From debt ceilings to deficit reductions, Democrats and Republicans diverge on the best vehicle to reinvigorate American’s fiscal viability and workforce sustainability.

With the passage of the two week funding resolution Republicans have revealed their latest strategy for their ongoing war on working families, student, children and seniors. The Republicans seek to implement their “No Jobs Agenda” through a hundred little cuts as opposed to one fell swoop. We now see that Republicans will continue to hold America hostage. First they will take us hostage with short-term CR after CR. Then they will hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage by refusing to raise the debt-limit without receiving even more cuts in return.

Democrats believe key investments in transportation, infrastructure, energy and education are the key to building a strong and sustainable American workforce and an industry that will keep us internationally competitive. We need to continue to make smart investments this can only be accomplished by staving off draconian cuts. I applaud the president for stepping into the fray and joining House Democrats in standing up for middle class families.

To use Sen. Durbin’s own words, “it is hard to believe” Democrats had all of last year to pass a budget and failed to do so, despite having the votes. It is hard to believe that Senate Democrats have had a House-passed continuing resolution for over two weeks and refuse to call a vote or produce a plan of their own. It is hard to believe that Democrats could oppose spending cuts when faced with a $1.5 trillion deficit.

Under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s control, nondefense discretionary spending increased more than 80 percent. Deficits and debt spiraled out of control, reaching record levels. Yesterday, Gen. James Mattis, commander of the U.S. Central Command, reiterated Adm. Mike Mullen’s assessment that our debt is the greatest national security threat we face as a country.

House Republicans have now sent two funding resolutions to the Senate in a straightforward attempt to deal with his threat, and we are still waiting for a response. The responsible thing would be for Democrats to stop ignoring this problem and produce an alternative so we can begin to debate. Our fiscal crisis is not going away unless we dramatically cut spending and it is time for Sens. Durbin, Reid and other Democrats to overcome their disbelief.

The Democrats punted last year and failed to pass a budget. Whether or not we are forced to continue to budget two weeks at a time depends on whether the Democrats continue to punt, or pass the long-term CR in the Senate and embrace the real spending cuts our country needs to help get our fiscal house back in order.

Despite having control of the House, Senate and White House last year, Democrats in Washington failed to produce a budget. Making initial progress on cutting federal spending by passing two-week extensions of the current budget is a logical way for Republicans to put pressure on President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and other congressional Democrats.

With each fortnight, Republicans have an opportunity to demonstrate to the country that they are serious about trying to put our fiscal house in order and have heeded the clear message of the 2010 election. Democrats will be on the defensive when President Obama and his allies defend the status quo while the public learns that it is quite possible to make significant cuts to federal spending.

In the long term, we would all be better served if Congress adopted a two-year budget cycle. That way, members of Congress could spend the year after an election addressing the spending priorities of the federal government. This would result in more certainty in planning for necessary programs. The following year could then be dedicated to conducting oversight of the bureaucracy and addressing other critical policy issues.

Sen. Durbin has it right. I’m horrified by the prospect of a series of short-run extensions. We have a solution in the form of the Bowles-Simpson Commission report. Why not put it into effect? After all, it got a majority of votes from this bipartisan group and was widely praised by most budget experts as a sensible compromise that put everything on the table. It should be the starting point for any discussion. The Commission argued, and most experts agree – including Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke – that cutting spending by $61 billion this year will slow the recovery. Instead, Congress needs to enact some confidence-building measures for the medium and longer-term. Instead, all of their energies are focused on a fiscal year that is almost half over. This is tantamount to fighting a tiger by pulling its tail, arguing about who pulled the hardest, and destroying jobs in the process.

Thanks to the continuing resolution passed by the Senate yesterday, our government won’t be shutting down tomorrow. But how can we expect the Congress to implement the president’s $3.7 trillion dollar request for next year if such a piece meal, “let’s cut 4 billion and see where we go from here” approach is all that our elected legislators have to show for their budget work?

Until we see leaders from both sides of the aisle willing to take up unpopular trimming, “irresponsible” will remain the word du jour. This means tackling head on the way Washington funds retirement, health care and the military. The Economist may have put it best this week, stating, “The cuts so far have been the easy stuff.”

But while every cut is a step in the right direction, America has been sitting at the all-you-can-eat buffet for far too long. It’s high time our government got back in serious shape, because the marathon course ahead looks very bleak.

According to the National Association for Business Economics this week, our budget deficit is the single gravest concern to economists. Not jobless claims, nor inflation. And with our debt quickly reaching its ceiling, we may even have to drop out of the race (i.e. default) if the government does not put some serious thought into tackling big ticket items. Congressional Democrats have avoided stepping up to the plate, seeing that we don’t even have a budget written for this fiscal year. Hopefully Republicans, replete with new muscle in the House, will take their $61 billion dollar proposal much further, and into programs deemed “untouchable.”

The GAO has already offered a helping hand to the Congress, too. Aside from what has already been proposed, additional tens of billions of dollars, it claims, can be saved simply by streamlining the federal bureaucracy. As the nation’s top government watchdog highlighted in a report Monday, do we really need 82 government programs to help improve the quality of our teachers, or 100 government programs to improve surface transportation? I think the answer is quite clear.

The current fiscal year ends on September 30th. Unfortunately, we can’t wait until then, or anywhere near then. What we need desperately are pro-growth, innovation-driven and long-term budget solutions that will afford our children and grandchildren the opportunity to go to school, work and raise a family without an omnipresent debt doomsday hanging over their heads.

Hopefully the next two weeks result in some serious cost-cutting where costs actually need to be cut. Unpopular, yes, but utterly essential if we are to have the future this great nation deserves.

Michele L. SwersGeorgetown University Associate Professor of American Government :

Short-term extensions are not helpful for long-term planning within government and result in the types of wasteful behavior and short term thinking that Congress criticizes the bureaucracy for. With that said, the current process is just another step in the long-term fight over the budget. Short-term CRs work to Republicans advantage up to a point. Americans want spending cuts in the abstract but when you get specific they only want to cut waste, fraud, abuse, and foreign aid.

The first CR cut earmarks and some duplicative programs that were in Obama's budget. If we keep going with 2 week CRs Republicans can cut more as long as they keep winning the public debate that we need spending cuts, if Democrats are able to reframe the debate to focus the public's mind on what is being cut then public opinion could turn.

The other important aspect of this battle is the long term effect it will have on the parties positions in the 2012 budget war. The 2012 budget is where actual cutting that might have a long term impact on the deficit could be done. GOP Budget Chair Ryan is already talking about making a budget that includes cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A deal on these longer term problems will require trust on both sides. If a series of short-term extensions builds more bad blood between the parties it will make it harder for Obama, Democrats, and Republicans to come to a deal that achieves long-term fiscal security and not just short-term political gain.

The irresponsible way to conduct the budget process is to double spending in a decade, to increase it 23 percent in two years in the face of declining revenues, to run up a $1.6 trillion deficit, and to increase the national debt from $5.6 trillion to $14.1 trillion during the Bush-Obama years.

Are short-term extensions a poor budgeting practice? Of course. But with the president and many members of Congress unwilling to cut spending to trim a $1.6 trillion deficit -- and even House Republicans proposing cuts that are a fingernail trim after the trillion-dollar runup of the past couple of years -- it's important to focus on the real irresponsibility. Anything that changes that pattern has to be an improvement.

David B. CohenAssociate professor of political science, The University of Akron :

Two-week budgets are certainly not an efficient or effective way to conduct the budget process, but House Republicans did not seem likely to budge from their two-week proposal and Senate Democrats were backed into a corner. Clearly, neither side wants to be blamed for shutting the government down. However, with the White House finally jumping publicly into the fray with Vice President Biden leading the negotiating team, the power equation may shift and Senate Democrats will have political cover.

With direct involvement of the White House, I’d be surprised if we see another short-term extension. My guess is that will either see an agreement covering the rest of fiscal 2011 or the federal government will indeed close for business.

There are irreconcilable issues here. Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit, but they don’t, really. What they want to do is shrink government in a recession-recovery period. That’s a different goal and is the reason why revenue enhancement is off their table.

The public thinks otherwise. They don’t want Social Security (which has nothing whatever to do with deficit reduction since it is fully paid for through 2037 and can be fixed by upping the cap on contributions at the high end) or Medicare (which is actually best approached by the Affordable Health Care Act the GOP is desperately running from) benefits touched. And the public wants a focus on jobs and the economy, far more important to them than the deficit.

Until the GOP gets on the same page as the rest of the country, they are going to have problems every which way they turn. And yes, they will be blamed, since their approach has nothing to do with growing the economy or creating jobs, and runs counter to what the public wants to do (the minority of tea party supporters is just that.)

Last year Democrats, holding overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, consciously decided not to even try to pass a FY 2011 budget, because they realized that the spending and deficit numbers they were discussing would hurt them with voters in November. That is the only reason we are dealing with continuing resolutions at all. Having abdicated this core responsibility of Congress, Democrats now seek to lock in high levels of spending by refusing to negotiate with the new majority any cuts in spending, using the threat of a government "shut-down" (a classic government term in the sense that very little of the government actually shuts down) to back up their position.

What is happening is that after a 10-year spending bender under both Republican and Democratic majorities, a rejuvenated GOP is finally trying to act responsibly. If Sen. Durbin is really concerned about two-week continuing resolutions, he should have urged his party to pass a budget last year. Having failed to do that, he could make up for it by urging it to accept mild spending cuts now to finalize a 2011 budget.

Businesses, local governments and individuals need stability to be able to make long term plans and these short term agreements fail to provide that. These short term budget agreements do not allow people to properly plan for events or activities in their lives. At least having a full budget properly allows other people to plan on how much money they are or are not receiving from the federal government, as well as what is going to happen to their tax rates.

Our government has broken down. Can you imagine running a business this way? Most businesses have long-term capital investment plans, let alone budgets that extend at least a year at a time. This is a great grand-standing opportunity for the new, irresponsible tea-partiers, who need a shot of reality in their tea.

But it will be a disaster not only for good policymaking but shortly for our economy, as our creditors lose faith in our ability to meet our obligations and govern ourselves, and as businesses and individuals stop spending for fear of a shut-down.

It’s also a golden opportunity for the same bought-off members of Congress from both parties who have cut taxes for the rich and kept subsidies for big corporations to scream that we need to cut safety net programs, education, etc., at a time when they are most essential because of the actions of the same bad actors who created this “deficit crisis” with tax giveaways and deregulation of industries that crashed the economy and destroyed our tax base by throwing so many people out of work.

If Democrats had any spine, they would let the Republicans shut the government down, but that means not letting them selectively shutting down the parts they don’t like: that means seniors don’t get their Social Security checks, soldiers don’t get their paychecks, doctors don’t get their Medicare payments, students don’t get their student loans, states don’t get any subsidies for anything, federal highways don’t get fixed, members of Congress have their health insurance and pay suspended, and government contractors don’t get a dime.

Let people see what government normally does for them, and get a taste of what they would feel if the Republicans got what they say they want.

It is a very effective strategy for Republicans. The longer this stopgap figure is in place, the easier it is for Republicans to claim that this is the new normal when it comes time to pass the budget. Through the stopgap they lower the bar as to how much money Congress needs to spend and place Democrats in the position of defending perceived increases in spending (rather than the reality, where they are preventing budget cuts).

The only reason we are now forced to mess around with short-term continuing resolutions is because the federal government does not have a budget for this fiscal year.

The only reason we don’t have a budget for this fiscal year is because the last Congress failed utterly in its responsibility to write one.

You know – the Congress that was dominated by Durbin’s Democrats. Who didn’t want to go on the record with the record-busting deficit spending they wanted to do – so they punted on the budget.

To quote President Barack Obama – The tea party and the Republicans are “busy…with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess --- we don't want somebody sitting back saying you're not holding the mop the right way. Why don't you grab a mop, why don't you help clean up…. Grab a mop -- let's get to work.”

The whole budget process is irresponsible, so who cares about this particular part of it? At a time when 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed, the president and Congress are debating how many more people they want to throw out of work by further reducing demand in the economy.

I am still looking for the business owner who is going to hire more workers because the government cut spending. Every business owner I ever met makes hiring decisions based on the demand they see for their business. Only in Washington do they think that businesses base their hiring decisions on federal spending cuts.

You have to love the imagery. A clothing store owner in Des Moines says, "Hey, I see they cut $23 billion out of the federal budget, I think I will go out and hire three more sales clerks." Or a barber shop owner in Little Rock says "Wow, they got rid of that wasteful home heating oil program, I think I'll hire a couple more barbers."

In Washington this sort of nonsense might pass for serious economics, but it wouldn't fly anywhere else. At a time when Congress should be focused on generating jobs, they are planning ways to eliminate them instead, and the media is turning it into a great big political drama. It ain't pretty.

With polls consistently showing that large majorities prefer tax increases on upper income individuals over nearly all program cuts, two week budgets obscure the nation's larger fiscal position and choices. A longer term budget moves us away from the "crisis" frame and makes it easier to talk about the impact of these cuts on education, health, and safety.

Well, how has the "old normal" worked out? Runaway spending, deficits and debt as far as the eye can see. If it takes two-week budgets to keep the nation's eye on the ball, so be it, as the man said. That's what the last election was about.

But the Democrats, and some Republicans, still don't get it. Of course they want a longer-term extension. They want us distracted. So is the two-week budget irresponsible? Not when it's the antidote to the irresponsibility that got us into this mess. Come to think of it, how about two-week budgets right up until November 2012?

The irresponsibility began in the previous Congress with the failure of the old Democratic majority to approve a year-long budget. So Democrats are in a poor position to criticize.

Of course short-term extensions are irresponsible, but Congress crossed that bridge years ago. This first two-week extension looks like a win for Republicans and not a fatal mistake for Democrats. I'd look for one or two more of these, until all the easy cuts are gone and the partisanship gets purer and stronger. And then probably one final fiscal 2011 deal that gets about one-third to one-half of the cuts House Republicans have compiled.

In the larger picture, these thin slices off fiscal 2011 appropriations are like cutting one's hair to lose weight. One looks a little prettier, but it has almost no effect on the goal. All the money's in entitlement reform and tax reform, which has to occur in the fiscal 2012 budget cycle.

This is a bad joke, right? We’re at war abroad and, according to the GOP, facing an unprecedented terrorist threat at home. Yep, it’s really responsible to hold those programs and agencies responsible for maintaining our national security hostage to this partisan pissing contest. Somewhere, Osama Bin Laden must be smiling.

Ken FeltmanChairman Radnor Inc.; Past president of the International Association of Political Consultants :

We are in this mess because the Democrats did not adopt a budget before the election last November. The two-week extension allows negotiations to continue and is not as irresponsible as Sen. Durbin implies.

Meantime, the good news is that spending has been cut, not increased or pegged at current levels. That's a step in the right direction.

The groundbreaking aspect of the recent budget deal is not that it is short-term. Congress has long used short term extensions to keep the government funded while legislators and the White House resolve outstanding issues. This budget deal, however, is substantively different in that it actually cuts spending, showing that Congress and the White House are now, finally, waking up to the fact that spending increases can't increase forever, and that significant budget cuts need to be made.

The whole context here is irresponsible. Recall that we are in this situation because congressional Democrats would not pass a budget before the election. The idea that Dick Durbin would be trying to make an issue of this is farcical. His guys didn't get the job done and got fired

It is doubly farcical when you consider that the House has debated and passed a long-term CR while the Senate has been debating the time sensitive and crucial matter of patent reform.

There is no greater myth than Republicans in Congress "keeping a tight grip on the nation's purse strings". Sure, they cut $4 billion in middle class programs that will cost the U.S. 700,000 jobs, but how serious can they be about deficit reduction when they refuse to cut defense and continue voting tax breaks for corporations? Yesterday, every House Republican voted to continue billions in subsidies for America's five largest oil companies. Tight grip, indeed.

Doug Shelledy (guest)
TX:

The Republicans passed a bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. It was the Democrats that objected to this 7 month plan. So the Republicans came back with a 2 week plan. And the Democrats are still screaming and trying to cast blame.
And independents (the people who really decide elections) are noticing.

Tom Altee (guest)
FL:

MSM being unfair? I wouldn't know. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC are all locked down under parental control in my house.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Mike Sullivan is proof that there is no bigger myth that liberals can do math or economics. He claimed the $4 billion cut will cost 700,000 jobs? That would equate to Obama's $787 billion spending creating 137,725,000 jobs. Or, more jobs that currently exist in the U.S. That bogus job loss number was in a partisan report tied to a $61 billion cut. Equally clueless, as Obama's stimulus would've translated into creating over 9 million jobs. Lunacy.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

The left is always completely tolerant of violence, so long as it suits their agenda. They are quick to find an excuse, like the doting mother not wanting to blame sweet little Johnny for his temper, but whoever gets in Johnny's way of happiness. When a cop is killed by a drug dealer, the left talks about abusive cops pushing him to it, and if the dealer is killed, it's excessive force. Why would anyone expect any less media bias in politics.

Dean Majette (guest)
VA:

I am disappointed in those who believe that the protesters in Madison have been anything but peaceful. Arrests have been fewer than with a typical Badger basketball game. The real description and violence has come from the Republicans who have been nothing short of dishonest, belligerent and arrogant. You have to wonder where their honor and integrity have gone.

Josiah Bartlet (guest)
NH:

It is important to note that there was so much incivility at the protests in Wisconsin that Fox News had to post a video of a completely different protest to suggest the protesters were out of control. The bottom line is that we are too often okay with incivility so long as they are promoting our beliefs and agendas. Finally, it is always more effective to talk about evils a person is actually committing than comparing them to Hitler.

Al Zeller (guest)
NY:

How out of touch is Obama? He asks for $40 billion more than last year and then uses that number to add to the $8 billion more he's willing to cut to say he's met the GOP halfway. Why not ask for a trillion more then cut it and say I've cut a trillion from the budget, spike the football and pat himself on the back. Yet most of the MSM tries to point out anything they can to make the GOP look bad for the Dems' mess.

Thomas Hall (guest)
MD:

Legacy of Bush-Cheney:
2002-2007 median wage dropped while more people went into poverty.
By 2008, household wealth went down $14 trillion.
In 2006, home equity was $13 trillion; mid-2008, it was $8.8 trillion.
In 2006, retirement assets were $10.3 trillion; by mid-2008, it was $8 trillion.
Savings and investments after 2006 lost $1.2 trillion, while pension assets lost $1.3 trillion.
In 2007, state pension funds were 96 percent funded.

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

Doesn't matter whether Republicans turn over their anti-spending cards one at a time or all at once, the fact is they've got nothing. Their cherished spending cuts, really nothing more than numbers pulled out of thin air, were never doable and will never happen. The anti-abortion and now anti-union sideshows we are seeing both acknowledge and exacerbate dwindling public confidence that Republicans have any clue how to manage economic policy.

Linda Conley (guest)
OR:

MSM ignores left-wing horror stories coming out of the union protests; thus, the right must act on their own to acquire coverage of the left's unruly and violent behavior in Madison, where it is said progressivism was born. And don't overlook the mostly unmentioned incident (except for Fox) where Rep Gordon Hintz D, Oshkosh, said "you're f---ing dead" to Rep Michele Litjens R, Winneconne, after Repubs approved a bill. Ah, civility on the left.

Steven Best (guest)
OH:

Did the Dems cause the budget mess? For goodness sake, they have been in charge of the budget for the past six years. What kind of question is this?

ross thomas (guest)
IL:

The right has its own news network/propaganda machine and still they whine about how unfair the media is to them. Man up!

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Dean Baker is under the illusion that all spending is equally good for an economy. It's odd that he can't tell the difference between a business spending on equipment and labor, and government payroll. A business has to create more wealth than it spends, or it goes out of business. A government doesn't create any wealth, but siphons off the wealth of others, or prints money to devalue the saved wealth of others. What path obviously creates more growth?

Lorenzo Davenport (guest)
GA:

The fact is that Democrat and Republican members of Congress have become deathly afraid of their own constituents and money providing lobbyists, so afraid that anything other than minimalist actions are just not possible. The incoming brash freshmen class of Republicans are making a stab at serious budget changes, but we will have to see how long they can hold their breath underwater.

Stephen Howell (guest)
AR:

The media has ignored the vile behavior of some of the union people in contrary to their observations of the tea party. The media ignores the behavior of Democrats and demonizes Republicans. Perfect examples would be Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc. Because they have so deeply bought into the Democratic agenda they have wrecked their effectiveness. How can you be effective when you have become part of the story?

Brad Bonar (guest)
PA:

Of course the MSM has been downplaying the nastiness from the union thugs in Madison. The MSM, by and large, are not Journolists -- they are activists.

Mary Robitaille (guest)
WI:

I have been at the protests. I am in favor of them. I am a private sector worker and small business owner. In a protest involving over 70,000 people, there are some inappropriate signs. Those are few and far between. I watched students inside the building insist on letting a Walker supporter carrying an insulting sign have a chance to state his opinion along with everyone else. Your commentators are ignorant.

steven best (guest)
OH:

Is the MSM ignoring "progressive incivility" in Wisconsin? Of course they are. This certainly doesn't fit their storyline. It is so sad that we have come to this. There are expectations the people have of a free press. When they are so entwined in an agenda, the expectation has died. Even sadder, they blatantly demonstrate their bias.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.